Omaha daily bee., 1887-06-12
ShakespeArc or Bacon,

Mr.. Ignntlus Donnelly begins in the
current number OF the North american
Rev,ew his long promised revelations to
prove that the dramas credited TO Will
liam Shakespeare were not and could
not have been written by him, but were
the work OF his eminent contemporary,
Sir Francis Bacon. The intelligent
reader will not need to be informed that
the view which MIR. Donnelly will en-
deavor to establish Is not original with
him, but he has certainly pursued it with
greater patience and assiduity than any
other. He claims to have reached re-
suits that will be the literary sensation
Of the century, and it IS very likely the
magazine that is favored with the publ.
cation of the revelations will have a
largely increased constituency during
their continuance, while of course they
will receive liberal discussion elsewhere.
Any question relating to the great
dramatist Is sure to command
a world of attention, and
none more so than that affecting his titlo
to The authorship of the immortal dramas
that are credited to him.
The first instalment of Mr.. Donnelly's
exposure of "The Shakespeare Myth"
IS to some extent disappointing. at least
to those who expected entirely new evil
dence. 1t is largely taken up with a
sklllful presentation of what had already
been put forward in support Of the CLAIM
IN behalf Of Bacon by those who preceded
MIR. Donnelly in this fold Of investiga-
ton, and while tho parallelisms revealed
and certain other facts affirmed do not
lack force and plausibility, they cannot
be said to establish conviction. For
other reasons. also, the first impression
of Mr.. Donnelly's work is not likely to be
favorable with great many. The icono-
elastic spirit of the author seems to be of
the most relentless kind, and he relegates
Shakespeare to outer darkness as a
drunken poacher who at different time
signed his name in seven. different ways,
and whose real name or original name
was different from all of these. whose
birth in the historic Henley street cottage
is doubtful, and whose wife's name was
Whatley instead of Hathaway. This
sort of obloquy, coupled with the charge
of illiteracy, will appear to very large
hukAbSA Va AhtStAASChS PCOpAC AiOC W w
absolutely essential to the purpose OF MIR.
Donnelly, or at least not in the style and
obvious spirit in which lie presents it. To
have stated that Shakespeare was OF
humble birth, that his opportunities for
| acquiring even o limited education were
| few. and that his youth was somewhat
wild, and perhaps at times incorporate,
would have been pardonable and possi-
bly, necessary. But Mr.. Donnelly has
offended good taste and dclied
testimony probably quite as good
as any he can produce in
the attempt to degrade Shakespeare
to the lowest plane of moral meanncs:
and mental insigniiicanco. This i.
view which we believe the intelligen,
opinion OF to-day will very generally re-
sent.
On the other hand 1t cannot be doubted
that MIR. Donnelly will find some, possi
bly, q great many, to acquiesce In hii
theory respecting the authorship of the
Shakesperean dramas. These wonder
full products Of genius, representing &
breadth OF knowledge. and a yastnes.
and universality Of intellectual power
and resource. not to be found in the
works of any other author the world has
produced, may easily Justify doubt o;
to whether they could have been pro
duccd BY man who had no better op
portunites than the uncertain record
shows were at the command OF Shakes
pearc to fit himself for so great task
1t must always be regretted that sc
little Is known with certainty con
corning this man, and that much Of wha
is known is capable OF being used to the
damage Of his fame. But we are apt tc
make narrow and insufficient estimate
Of the possibilities Of genius, and cspe-
ciaily of such exceptional genius as j;
disclosed in the Shakesperean drama
The restricted intellectual scope of tho
average man may we'll be pardoned II il
fails to comprehend how any mind. moi
nurtured from Its very dawn In every
form Of mental requirement and expert
- l. - r.